The following is a translation of an article
that appeared in the Freezing Point (Bingdian) weekly supplement of China Youth
Daily. It was announced yesterday that the supplement had been discontinued and the article below
is a precipitating factor.

'Freezing Point,' a weekly supplement to China Youth Daily, was closed due to publication of "some sensitive reports," a senior official at the weekly, who wished to remain anonymous, told Interfax. The weekly is well known in China for stories that focus on normal people's thoughts and society in contemporary China.

"Yes, we are closed due to a report by Mr. Yuan Weishi. But that's just an excuse," said the official. According to the official, the decision to stop the weekly was made by a department "even more senior than the Publicity Department of the Central Committee of the China Communist Party." The Publicity Department was formerly the Propaganda Bureau, and is responsible for supervision of all news and publication activities in China.

'Freezing Point' re-published an article written by Yuan Weishi, a professor in Guangzhou's Sun Yat-sen (Zhongshan) University, in mid-January. Yuan said in the article that the Chinese side should bear some responsibility in the triggering of many issues in Chinese history, even actions such as the burning of the Old Summer Palace by British and French armies in the late Qing Dynasty, during the boxer rebellion. Yuan wrote the article in the name of "telling true history to the youth".

"Only if we could say what we did is wrong, the weekly may be resumed. But we will never say that, so the shut down has no end point," said the official.

The Chinese Government has suspended one of the country's most popular and outspoken newspaper sections, accusing its editors of "viciously attacking the socialist system".
Authorities have ordered Freezing Point, a weekly feature section of the state-run China Youth Daily that frequently challenges the party line, to stop publication until it is "rectified and fully recognises and corrects its mistakes".

Party officials issued a five-page document on Monday accusing the section of "viciously attacking the socialist system" and condemning a recent article that criticised the history textbooks used in secondary schools. The section was suspended on Tuesday and yesterday's issue of China Youth Daily appeared without Freezing Point.

The section's chief editor, veteran journalist Li Datong, yesterday confirmed the suspension and said the closure was illegal.
"Criticism against our weekly has never ceased. But this is not a small newspaper and we have a very good reputation (among readers)," he said.
"What they (the authorities) have done has no basis in the constitution or law and is against the party constitution as well. We will find a proper way to fight."
Another journalist at the paper said she did not expect Freezing Point to be published again, because the reporters did not accept that they had made any mistakes. Journalists would also be fined, she said.

Employees said Wednesday that China has shut down a newspaper supplement known for its in-depth reporting on sensitive issues, the latest measure by the communist government to tighten control over the media.
Production of Bing Dian, a four-page weekly supplement of the state-run China Youth Daily, was halted until further notice late Tuesday, the eve before its latest issue was to appear, the employees said.
Chief editor Li Datong said he was called into a meeting at 8 p.m. and notified of the shutdown without being given a reason. Im very angry, said Li, the supplements founder. Well be going through regular channels to appeal.

Staff at Bing Dian  which means Freezing Point  expressed bewilderment with the closure. Its so unfair, said a woman in the Bing Dian office who declined to give her name because of the sensitivity of the situation. Its hard to tell how long this will last but we were told it can be resumed after improvements.
Employees said officials did not say what would happen to Bing Dians staff of five editors and eight reporters.

Party officials summoned the senior editors of the China Youth Daily and ordered Freezing Point closed a day after distributing a five-page document that accused the section of "viciously attacking the socialist system" and condemned a recent article in it that criticized the history textbooks used in Chinese middle schools.

Propaganda authorities issued an order barring all media from reporting the suspension, all reporters from participating in any news conference about it and all Web sites from carrying any discussion about it, journalists said.

The chief editor of Freezing Point, Li Datong, confirmed the suspension in a message on his blog before censors deleted the page. "My colleagues and I just finished the full-page proof of tomorrow's Freezing Point, but it looks like it can't come out," he wrote. "Freezing Point tenaciously survived for 11 years, and it has finally died."

Reached by telephone, Li said that it was inconvenient to discuss what happened in detail but that he planned to write an essay to fight the decision. He said propaganda officials issued a notice criticizing him and the newspaper's editor in chief by name and ordering the section closed until it is "rectified and fully recognizes and corrects its mistakes."

Li, a party member and veteran journalist, stunned the propaganda authorities last summer with a lengthy letter attacking a plan to award bonuses to reporters at the newspaper who had won praise from government officials while deducting pay from reporters whose articles were criticized by officials. After the letter was leaked, the newspaper scrapped the bonus plan.

Though some publications ordered to undergo "rectification" by the party resume operations within weeks, others never publish again. Li said he planned to meet with his colleagues before deciding how to proceed, but he indicated that he did not believe Freezing Point had erred in publishing the article about the history textbooks.

The piece, written by Yuan Weishi, a reform-minded scholar at Zhongshan University in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou, criticized Chinese textbooks for teaching an incomplete history of China's last imperial dynasty, the Qing, that fosters blind nationalism and closed-minded anti-foreign sentiment.

For example, he challenged the textbooks for portraying the 1900 Boxer Rebellion as a "magnificent feat of patriotism" without describing the violence committed by the rebels or their extreme anti-foreign views. He also criticized the books for blaming the Opium Wars of the mid-1800s entirely on foreign nations, without mentioning the Qing government's record of violating treaties by refusing foreign merchants access to Chinese cities.

The piece was the latest in a long series of articles in Freezing Point that carefully pushed the limits of permissible journalism in China. In November, the section published an essay describing the "White Terror" of authoritarian rule in Taiwan during the 1950s and democratic Taiwan's efforts to cope with that history of political repression. The contrast with events in mainland China was obvious but unstated.
[Note: The article mentioned here
is A
Chairman Bowed Formally Three Times]

Bing Dian, or Freezing Point, published as a supplement to the influential newspaper China Youth Daily, was one of the few major news outlets that routinely printed in-depth investigative stories and broached delicate topics.
The order to cease publication is effective immediately, the paper's longtime editor, Li Datong, said in a telephone interview.
"This is an intolerable step that has absolutely no basis in law and is in fact completely illegal," he said. It cannot be appealed, he said.

The authorities cited the publication of a lengthy study of Chinese middle-school textbooks as a reason for the order, Mr. Li said. The Jan. 11 article discussed what the author, Yuan Weishi, a Zhongshan University professor, referred to as official distortions of history to emphasize the humiliations China suffered at the hands of imperial powers.
He criticized the textbooks' treatment of events like the Boxer Rebellion and the burning of the Summer Palace by British and French troops in 1860, which he said were partly the result of mistakes by then-flailing Qing Dynasty leaders.
"We are at a critical moment in our modernization and the key to the success of our development is understanding our system and mental model," he wrote. "I was shocked to see that few things had changed since the Cultural Revolution."

Mr. Li said the article, though provocative, was just an excuse for closing the paper. In August, a letter by Mr. Li led to a revolt at the China Youth Daily group after the paper's new party-appointed editor, Li Erliang, sought to impose a review system that graded the staff on factors including the reaction their work elicited from party leaders.
The letter, which was posted on the Web, and the backlash resulted in the modification of the review system.
[Note: The letter mentioned here is The
Letter of Li Datong]

Mr Li spent a sleepless night at his Beijing home on Tuesday after the Central Propaganda Department officially issued a notice informing of him of the section's closure. He still had his job yesterday.

The notice specifically criticised Mr Li and several other senior China Youth Daily editors for running a number of articles that had irritated authorities.
"For a certain period of time, a number of the articles incompatible with the mainstream ideology have been continuously published on your section and have had very bad effects," the notice said. "The weekly should be suspended until it is rectified and fully recognises and corrects its mistakes."

China Youth Daily management had planned to announce Bingdian's closure in a general meeting at the newspaper yesterday afternoon, but fears that Mr Li would make a public statement prompted management to release the details in several smaller-scale, closed-door gatherings.

Mi Li retained his official title and was at work yesterday alongside his colleagues at the China Youth Daily, the media arm of the China Youth League where President Hu Jintao held sway as chairman for five years from 1982.
It is understood that Mr Li will have to take pay cut and will not receive a Lunar New Year bonus. It was not certain yesterday how long Mr Li and his reporting team would remain at the newspaper, but it is clear that Bingdian Weekly will not be resurrected.

What is going on? Does something go
wrong with an issue of Freezing Point?

On January 11, the Freezing Point special
article published Mr. Yuan Weishi's essay: "Modernization and History
Textbooks." Mr. Yuan used solid historical material to criticize the
history textbooks used in junior middle school. The essay was sent to
the editor-in-chief for review, and he did not agree with its publication for
the reason is that textbooks represent national activities that cannot be
criticized. I disagree with this reason. So we can't talk about
party history, but why we can't we talk about late Qing history? Mr.
Yuan's essay only offered some historical materials and conlcusions known to
everyone in the history field. So why can't it be published? Of
course, this subverted the sayings in the middle school next book, but the
television drama <<Going Towards The Republic>> was even much more
subversive and CCTV let a hundred million people watch it.

This reason seemed to have convinced the
editor-in-chief, who agreed to publication with some minor deletions and
editing.

Fine, but real problems emerged. First,
this was a critical notice from a certain department. Later, I heard
that a group of "experts" responsible for editing textbooks wrote to
the central leaders to complain. The storm is brewing and we"ll
wait and see. If they have the courage, they can bring this up openly
and Freezing Point will provide the space. Unfortunately, these people
open know how to complain secretly.

I am more interested in reader
feedback. The readers at the different websites have obviously different
stands. Netizens at the more intellectual websites such as Century
Academy and Hexun were mostly supportive of Mr. Yuan; the Sina.com netizens
were mostly scolding Mr. Yuan as a 'Chinese traitor' with the most filthy
language.

The best one is when a senior citizen
telephoned me. He first said that Mr. Yuan takes the "position of
imperialism" and then he said: "I now know in whose hands the
newspaper is controlled by." I asked, "So what kind of person
do you think I am?" He hemmed and hawed and coult not say.

Concerning The Handling Decision With Respect
To China Youth Daily Freezing Point Weekly Wrongly Publishing
<<Modernization and History Textbooks>>

On January 11, China Youth Daily Freezing
Point Weekly pubilshed Zhongshan University History Department professor Yuan
Weishi's essay <<Modernization and History
Textbooks>>. The essay attempted to vindicate the criminal acts by
the imperialist powers in invading China; it seriously distorted historical
facts; it seriously contradicted news propaganda discipline; it seriously
damaged the national feelings of the Chinese people; it seriously damaged the
image of China Youth Daily and it created bad social influence. The
related central government department has issued a serious critique.

On account of the serious error by the China
Youth Daily to publish <<Modernization and History Textbooks>>,
the following actions will be made:

1. A notice of criticism will be directed at
China Youth Daily party deputy secretary and editor-in-chief Li Erliang and
China Youth Daily Freezing Point Weekly editor Li Datong;

2. China Daily will stop publication of
Freezing Point for the purpose of re-organization, and impose appropriate
economic sanction(s) against the responsible person(s). Freezing Point
Weekly will stop publication for re-organization as of January 25, 2006.

We hope that China Youth Daily has learned
deeply from this incident and seriously carry out the re-organization of
Freezing Point Weekly. They have to correct the publication thinking
behind Freezing Point Weekly; increase awareness of political ideology,
awareness of the larger picture and sense of responsiblity; rigorously follow
the news propaganda discipline; insist on the correct direction of
opinion. After the related reorganization work is completed and the
errors are corrected, Freezing Point may re-publish again.

China Youth League Central Propaganda
Department
January 24, 2006

Modernization and History Textbooks. By Yuan Weishi (Zhongshan University
professor)

In the 21st century, the Chinese people are
facing the inexorable globalization trend. At the same time, the
modernization of China has reached a key moment. In this age, the system
will be the most important factor that determines the success of the
development of the nation and its people, and the states of mind of the
citizens are also important for their personal development as well that of the nation
and society as a whole.

In the late 1970's, after going through the
three disasters known as the Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward
and the Cultural Revolution, people have found out bitterly that the root of
these disaster includes: "We grew up drinking the wolf's
milk." More than twenty years have elapsed. I happened to
have glanced through the middle-school history textbooks recently, and I was stunned to
find: our youth are continuing to drink the wolf's milk!

The Chinese people have familiar sayings such
as "Use history as example" and "If you remember the past, you
will have a guide for the future." The modern history of China
contains so much in humiliations, setbacks and war experiences one after
another, and it should be an educational experience! We have the duty to
tell the true history to our youth so that they will never forget. This
is the required path to turn them into modern citizens. If these
innocent children swallow fake pills, then they will live with
prejudices for their own lives and go down the wrong path.

This is the moment when we have to examine
the problem about our history textbooks. We start with the discussion of
a few concrete historical incidents.

Was the burning of the Yuanming Garden
unavoidable?

The burning of the Yuanming Garden was an
unforgivable crime committed by the British and French invasion forces.
How did things reach this point? More than 140 years have passed, and we
should calmly consider the rights and wrongs of both sides to draw lessons, so that the people of different nations can live
together in peace. This
incident was one of the horrific outcomes of the Second Opium War. The
Third Volume of Chinese History edited by the People's Educational Publishers
is commonly used as the textbook in the first year of middle school in
the nine-year free education system. This is how this war was narrated.

1. The causes of the war.

This textbook said: "In March 1856,
the French Catholic priest Auguste Chapdelaine sneaked into the Xilin
district of Guangxi to cause mischief and was put to death by the local
officials. This was the so-called 'Chapdelaine incident.' Later
on, France used that as an excuse to initiate a war of aggression along with England. In October of the same year, the Guangzhou navy arrested
the pirates and sailors on the Chinese commercial ship The Arrow. The
English consul interfered by claiming that the Arrow was an English ship and
demanding that China release all the arrestees while apologizing and
compensating the English. The governor of Guangdong/Guangxi Ye
Mingchen did not want to magnify the matter, so he released the arrested
sailors but he refused to apologize. This was the so-called 'Arrow
incident.' In October 1856, the English initiated the war by
bombarding Guangzhou. Thus began the Second Opium War."

The description of the Arrow incident was
basically consistent with the historical facts. As for the killing of
the French Catholic priest August Chapdelaine, this is still a confusing
mess. Chapdelaine was executed on February 29, 1856 by the Guangxi
Xilin district substitute mayor Zhang Fengming. When the French consul
inquired, Zhang Fengming insisted that no such thing had happened. This
caused the Guangxi inspector general and the Guangdong/Guangxi governor to
believe it to be true up until early 1858, and that was how they replied to
the French consul as well as the central government.

According to the Treaty of Huangpo
established between China and France in October 1844, French people were
allowed to be active only within the "designated territories" in
the five ports agreed upon by both parties. "Any French citizen found
to violate this rule, or cross the boundaries, or enter the interior, will
be arrested by Chinese officials and sent to the nearest French consulate;
the Chinese officials must not assault, injure or mistreat any arrested
French persons so as not to damage the amity between the two nations."

Chapdelaine began to preach in Guangxi in
1842. After the Treaty of Huangpo was signed, he refused to
leave. This was a wrongful act under the Treaty. But it was wrong
for the Xilin official to execute him, for this was against the Treaty
obligation to send the arrested Frenchman to the consulate. Today,
people have still not figured out what Chapdelaine did to deserve being put
to death. According to the normal legalistic viewpoint of justice, the
Chinese side was no doubt in the wrong. The textbook is therefore
inaccurate in the characterization of this incident.

It should also be pointed out that the
textbook failed to mention the two basic root causes of this war.
First, the English government asked the Qing government to faithfully follow
the requirements of the Treaty of Jiangning, in which an important clause
was that the English officials and merchants be allowed to enter and leave
Guangzhou city freely. Letting the foreigners enter the city seems to
be a trivial matter today. At the time, there were similar disputes in
the other four open ports as well, but those tussles were resolved without
crises. In Guangzhou, it was a total mess that shook the entire
government and set the first example of refusing access to the foreigners. This
matter went on for more than ten years without resolution, until it had to
be settled in the battlefield.

Secondly, according to the Treaty of
Wangsha: "All trade and customs matters may be modified according to
circumstances. The two nations should negotiate fairly in 12 years'
time." The Treaty of Huangpo also said: "If there are
articles that require modification ... they should wait until 12 years
before negotiating with China again." Modifying commercial
clauses should be a simple diplomatic matter, but the Qing government
delayed again and again and increased the contradictions between the two
sides.

As for the reason why the war was started,
knowledgeable people at the time have thought about why. According to
insider Shi Fucheng who said in sorrow: "The English originally wanted
to enter the city to meet the officials in order to increase
communication. But the people of Guangzhou provoked them again and
again and Ye Mingchen made mistake after mistake and gave away the city ...
since the English knew that China was hapless, they joined with the French,
Russian and American gun boats to sail up north into Dagu to block Chinese
marine commerce and forced a treaty. The people of Guangzhou had been
irate at the previous negotiation and was therefore determined to bar the
foreigners from entering and rejected every request over twenty years.
The loss of Dagu and the Treaty of Tianjin were the results. Looking
at it today, it was pointless." In the late Qing era, Zeng
Guofan, Li Hongchang, Feng Guifen, Guo Songdao and others kept reminding
each other "do not let the small things create huge trouble" and
that included the lesson learned by the argument over letting the foreigners
enter Guangzhou.

In another part of the People's Republic of
China, the history textbooks for middle-school in Hong Kong are much better
edited than those in the mainland. They summarized the cause of the
war in four points: 1. The issue of foreigners entering the city; 2. the
problem about extending the treaty; 3. The Arrow incident; 4. the Father Chapdelaine
affair. This presentation matches the historical reality
and does not damage national interests. It also helps the younger
generation to calmly analyze the historical problem. It shows that the
editors were qualified historians. The puzzle is: Why couldn't the
mainland colleagues learn to do the same?

2. The course of the war.

In 1858, Dagu was seized. The
English and French invaders were outside the gates of Tianjin. The
English, French, Russians and Americans forced the Qing government to sign
the Treaty of Tianjin. Although many rights were conceded, the problem
was solved. The two sides agreed to exchange the letter of approval in
Beijing next year in order to complete the legal procedure. Had both
sides followed the agreement, the second invasion (culminating in the
burning of the Yuanming Garden) by the English and French armies could have
been avoided.

But nobody expected the purely procedural
final step would lead to unanticipated developments that brought even greater
disasters! The textbook said: "In 1959, the English and French
envoys led their respective fleets north to Daguhou in order to exchange
documents in Beijing. The Qing government insisted that the treaty envoys
land at Beitong and proceed to Bejing through Tianjin, and they also
requested the armed personnel on the warships not to disembark. The
English and French envoys counted on their military power and insisted that
they will land at Daguhou up the White River to get to Beijing. They
took their fleet into Daguhou rudely. The Chinese batteries at Daguhou
opened fire against the invaders. Four enemy ships were sunk and six
were damaged. The remaining three ships hoisted white flags and
fled. The people of Dagu brought food to the defenders during the
battle and exhibited a high degree of patriotism." According to
the pen of the editor, this was a patriotic and heroic paean in which the
principal actors were the soldiers and the common people. But there
are plenty of doubts upon further thought.

Based upon the results, this battle was an
obvious mistake. The next year, the English and French forces invaded
again and occupied Beijing, burning the Yuanming Garden during the process.
The new Treaty of Peking not only stipulated that the original Treaty of
Tianjin was valid, but there were additional penalties. The compensation
to England and France went respectively from the original 4 and 2 million
taels to 8 million taels each; the Kowloon district was conceded; French
missionaries were permitted to preach freely in China and "French
missionaries can rent or buy land in all the provinces and build at
will." This would lay the groundwork for the continuous disputes
in latter years. Would it be better for China if the battle had not
taken place?

It is logical for people to follow up with
the question: is it all that important which route the foreign envoys took
to reach Beijing, to the point of going to battle? Was there any
serious negotiations over this difference in opinion? Did the Chinese soldiers open fire on their own or upon orders? If the
former is the case, that
this was a serious mistake that violated military discipline, and so it
cannot be a patriotic and heroic act. If the latter is the case, then what kind of
order was issued?

In reviewing the historical data, this was
no act of patriotism and heroism. It was a major crime committed by
the ignorant Emperor Xianfeng and Lord Sengelinqin. The difference in
opinion was not about the choice of which route to enter Beijing as the
textbook says. Rather, they wanted the English and French envoys to
take a long detour to enter Tianjin. At the time, Lord Sengelinqin's
aid Guo Songdao wrote in his diary: On April 10, 1859, "Prince Yi
arrived at camp ... he said that he carried special orders from the Emperor:
if the foreigners come and refuse to follow the rules, you should attack
them by surprise. You say that these were just armed civilians, not
soldiers. You are to act properly otherwise, and delay all
negotiations. Prince Yi was muddleheaded, and Lord Sen had to review
it with him again and again. So the foreigners will be made to enter
at Beitong and then detour around to Tianjin ... the debate went on again
and again before the decision was made. The details are
attached."

After the Treaty of Peking was established,
Guo gave more details about the situation at the time: "The foreign
disaster began with Lord Sen's attempt to attack by deception. Last
year, there were more than a dozen orders from the Emperor to get them to
stay outside the river to await instructions. When the foreign ships
entered the inner river instead, Lord Sen did not send any messenger
with instruction. Instead, the soldiers were told to remove their
uniforms and acted as armed civilians to attack." Zeng Guofan
told his aides: "In the ninth year of Xianfeng, the foreigners came to
exchange the treaty documents. Lord Sengelinqin set up a trap and
attacked them, and the nation celebrated. In the tenth year, the
foreigners returned ... the capital fell and the nation mourned. I say
that Lord Sen caused this defeat and he ought to kill himself in apology to
the people." What they said was identical to the report by the
English envoy Bruce. The English and French navy arrived on June 16
and received a notice on the morning of June 25 from governor Shi Fu.
But by that time, the military action had already started. These
historical material can be summarized in the following points.

1. Emperor Xianfeng decided that under
certain circumstances, the soldiers can pretend to be armed civilians to
launch a "surreptitious" attack on the foreign devils. At
the same time, he issued more than a dozen orders that the foreigners must
receive notice beforehand.

2. Lord Sengelinqin faithfully carried out
the plan to launch a 'surreptitious' attack, but he gave no notice
beforehand. He also resolutely rejected the advice of his aides.
He was also the person who came up with the plan to ask the foreigners to
land at Beitong and make the detour to Tianjin.

3. Faced with this disaster that brought
national shame, the more astute officials such as Zeng Guofan, Guo Songdao,
Wu Rulun (as well Li Hongchang, Feng Guifen) made severe criticisms and
parables about what happened.

But the most shocking is this: In the 90's
of the twentieth century, our textbooks are still singing the tune of
Emperor Xianfeng and Lord Sengelinqin, with the only difference in replacing
the 'armed civilians' by soldiers!

At this point, we can answer the question
about whether the burning of Yuanming Garden can be avoided. Faced with
the pressure from the powerful enemies, the weaker Qing empire rationally
should follow the existing treaties carefully in order to avoid frontal
conflicts. They needed to buy time to reform and develop
themselves. But the government and gentry at that time were swayed by
extreme emotions, and chose to break the treaties on minor points and thereby
led to a great disaster. If the Qing government's decision-making class
and the local governments were not so ignorant and stubborn, this disaster
could have been averted. But the knowledge of the government officials
and the dictatorial decision-making method were built up over a long history and could
not be changed overnight. The fact that this was an invasion meant that
the foreigners could not be a civilized force. Thus, this disaster was
also unavoidable.

Was this a patriotic act or an uncivilized
act?

Let us look at how the textbook's authors
evaluate the Boxer rebels.

The textbook correctly disclosed that
"after the United Armies of the Eight Nations entered Bejing, arson,
murders and looting was committed"; "when the United Armies of the
Eight Nations invaded Tianjin ... the Russians committed the shocking massacre
at Hailanpao. The Russian army also forcibly took over China's Jiangdong
Liushisitun and butchered the local residents." Apart from the
above, everything else was error-filled.

1. The textbook did not mention anything
about how the Boxers were hostile to modern civilization or they blindly
rejected foreigners and all foreign civilizations through extremely ignorant
ways.

The Boxers cut down telegraph lines, they
destroyed schools, they demolished railroad tracks, they burned foreign
merchandise, they murdered foreigners and all Chinese who had any connection
of foreign culture ... any person or thing that had some foreign flavor had
to be totally annihilated. Even if the Boxers made great contributions
towards "supporting the Qing government and destroying the
foreigners," you should not be avoiding those anti-civilization and
anti-humanity mistakes. Besides, these criminal actions brought
unspeakable suffering to the nation and its people! These are all
facts that everybody knows, and it is a national shame that the Chinese
people cannot forget. Yet our children's compulsory textbooks will not
speak about it.

The textbooks also spoke about the
destruction of the railroad tracks. But what did it say?
"In June 1900 ... more than 2,000 invaders from the Eight Nations led by
British navy commander Moore went from Dagu through Tianjin towards
Beijing. The Boxers destroyed the railroad track from Tianjin to
Beijing and then attacked the invading force. The invading force was
surrounded near Langfang by the Boxers and suffered many casualties before
retreating back to Tianjin." On this basis, the destruction of
the railroad track was just an unavoidable act required to repel the
invaders. But what actually happened?

On May 28, 1900, the local governor Yu Lu
telegraphed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "On the evening of May 27,
we learned that the Boxer bandits have destroyed the railroad tracks from
Zhuozhou to Liulihe. This morning, all railroad stations, bridges and
buildings belonging to the railroad department along the 100 mile stretch
from Liulihe to Changxindian have been attacked and set on fire by the Boxer
bandits." At the same time, other emergency reports flooded in:
"The telegraph is now down ... the line to Changxindian is down; the
line from Liulihe to Zhuozhou is also cut off by the bandits and all
telegraph messages are stopped." They destroyed these equipment
solely because these things came from the outside, and not because there
were unavoidable actions that had to taken to stop the invaders. At
the same time, these activities occurred everywhere and they were not
infrequent actions that took place in isolated areas That is to say,
this was intentional destruction of property, and not what some historians
credited as heroic measures to resist the invaders. From the timing,
Moore's army was forced to retreat back to Tianjin between June 10 and June
26. Prior to this, the urgent reports from everywhere about the
destruction of the railroad and telegraph lines, the burning of the train
stations and the looting of property had already been coming in. The
Boxers burned, killed, looted and deliberately destroyed modern civilization
first, and then the United Armies of the Eight Nations came. This
chronology is the historical truth and cannot be revised.

2. The textbooks did not condemn the Qing
dynasty and the Boxers for killing the innocent and their barbaric and cruel
crimes in burning, killing and looting.

The most representative case is what the
Shanxi official Yu Xian did. On June 27, he burned down the foreign
hospital in Taiyuan. He lured the foreigners in the province to stay
together in one place. At the time, there were 211 women, some of whom
were old but most of them between 5 to 30 years old, in the church ... on
June 13, he personally led the troops to the place where the foreigners were
gathered. The foreigners attempted to resist arrest, but the troops
overpowered them and arrested 44 foreigners as well as 17 other Chinese
converts. All were brought to the marketplace and executed";
"in Shouyang county, Qin Xingui arrested seven foreign troublemakers
and brought them there for execution. That night, the Northern Gate
church was set on fire by the Boxers. There are no signs of any
foreign churches left in the provincial capital city." At the time,
the newspapers even reported: "The westerner at Yujin heard about the
troubles in the capital, and they asked official Yu Xian for
protection. But he told them to gather together and then he butchered them;
he was personally responsible for killing several people with his own hands."

The actions of Yu Xian was not
isolated. All these obstinate regressives were the inheritors of the
most retrogressive and barbaric elements of traditional culture. There
were numerous examples in which these obstinate bureaucrats caused
trouble. For example, the Hebei province official Dai Lan was ordered
to "direct" the Boxers with Dai Xun and Gang Yi, and his cruelty
was no less than Yu Xian's: "When the trouble began in the capital, Dai
Lan let the Boxer bandits enter the large houses and conduct searches.
If they find carpets and other stuff, the occupants were regarded as
believers and executed. Not even royal relatives were spared."

Let us look at what the Boxers
did. Previously, it has been pointed out that we cannot regard all
those people who participated in the Boxer organization should be regarded
as bandits because some of them were just blind followers. But there
are quite a few bandits and hooligans there. Overall during the Boxer
incident between June 24 and July 24 of 2000, 231 foreigners were killed, of
which 53 were children. Most of them died at the hands of the
Boxers. As for the Chinese believers who were killed, there is no
known number. Most of them were killed by the Boxers, and others by
the government soldiers. In Shanxi province alone, more than 5,700
Catholic followers were killed. In Liaoning province, "more than
one thousand believers." "In Heibei province, killings and
arson occurred in every single county. In one county alone, between
1,000 to 2,000 were killed." Even in Zhejiang province,
"looting and burning of the homes of believers occurred more than 1,000
times."

"The maximum damage" occurred in
Beijing, where there were many records left behind by the victims. On
June 18, 1900, "the burning and destruction began in midday and the
fire was still going at night ... if you don't like someone, you accuse them
of being believers and you murder their entire family. The number of dead
was more than 100,000. Most people died from knifes and spears, and
their bodies were cut up. Even babies not more than a month old were slaughtered. There was no
feeling of humanity left." "The
French catholic church was located inside Xian Gate. Gang Yi
supervised the soldiers to attack the church, but they could not breach the
defense. The Boxers did not dare advance so they ended up shouting a
lot. Then they turned around and headed towards Yongding Gate.
There were about 70 rural villagers going to the market. These people
were seized and accused of being from the White Lotus Sect because they
carried some children toys and clothes. Under interrogation, they had
nothing to confess to. So they were all executed in the
marketplace. One woman was executed while still holding her child in
her arms ... Yu Ding tried to appeal on their behalf by saying: 'There has
to be evidence for subversion. Old men and weak women are not
subversives; toys are not weapons for subversion ...' But it was too
late as the sentence had been carried out already."

On June 16, "at 9am, the Boxers set
fire to the Deji Pharmacy at the Dasanlan district. The fire moved on
to the food stores, the lamp street, the Guanyin temple, the jewel market
... and more then 4,000 shops were burned down. The fire did not stop
until daylight. The bandits forbade the fire brigade to fight the fire
with water." Thus, the most prosperous and busy section of
Beijing was destroyed in one day. Overall, "at its peak, there
were more than four million living in Beijing. When the Boxer chaos
came, the bandits came and looted the city with no one spared. The
market was deserted, and even wild animals can be seen roaming in broad
daylight. The formerly busy streets were like graveyards."
This was one of the results of the so-called Boxer "revolution."

At first, the contradictions between the
people versus the preachers and the converts drew some sympathy. But
what they did later far exceeded anything to do with conflicts with outside
religions. Afterwards all the way through the founding of the
republic, the consensus opinion of the officials and citizens was that this
organization should be properly regarded and defined as the Boxer bandits.

3. The most incomprehensible thing is that
there is no mention of the fact that this calamity was brought about by the
autocracy of the Empress Dowager.

When the Boxers first emerged, Yuan Shikai
presented a report to the Emperor: "They deceive the people by claiming
to be able to dodge and repel bullets and cannonballs. But whenever they fought
against the militia, the Christians and the soldiers, many of them die by
gunfire and they dissolve away quickly ... they attempt to sway people by
claiming to want to destroy the foreigners. Yet between last Spring
and Summer, they robbed the homes of more than 1,100 believers as well as
more than 200 ordinary citizens in Caozhou and Jining. Between Autumn
and Winter in Dongyang and Jinan, they robbed the homes of more then 600
believers and more than 100 ordinary citizens. There were also many
cases of kidnapping for ransom. These people are no different from
bandits. Believers suffered at their hands, but so do many ordinary
citizens." Certain other more senior officials than Yuan Shikai
(such as the Lord of the Northern Sea and the Hebei province governor Yu Lu) also
offered similar opinions. But the Empress Dowager refused to
listen. So the more perceptive officials can only maintain their
silence, while other officials of bad character ran with the trend and
looked for favors (such as Yu Lu).

So a weak country which could not even handle a
"tiny little country" such as Japan six years ago wanted to simultaneously declare war against eleven nations including
Japan! Sixty years after the "International Law" reached
China, they wanted to send troops to attack the foreign consulates in China!

To decide between war and peace, from June
16, 1900, the Empress Dowager held a four-day conference with the senior
government officials. At the conference, many officials pleaded with
the Empress Dowager not to listen to the evil cultists, not to assault the
consulates and not to declare war first. The Foreign Ministry
officials Yuan Changhu and Xu Jingdeng wrote in a joint petition:
"Since ancient history, when two nations go to war, they do not kill
innocent travelers. In international law, the consul is a major
official of the country. To hold the consul in contempt is to hold the
country in contempt. If the orders are sent for the bandits to attack
the consulates and kill their officials, the countries will regard this as a
huge humiliation and they will united together to seek revenge. For
one country to fight against all the other countries is not a matter of
winning or losing; it is about keeping or losing the entire country as a
result." But the Empress Dowager not only did not accept these
obvious commonsense wisdom, but she threw a fit and had those two officials
executed!

At the same time, most of the crimes such
as Yu Xin killing the foreigners occurred after the order to declare war on
the other nations on June 21 and the order to the local governors to kill
the foreigners on June 24. Therefore, the head criminal is the Empress
Dowager, and people like Yu Xin and Dai Yi were just brutal executioners.

4. The textbook is not serious about
handling certain historical materials.

"The Boxers arose from Shandong and by
March, the earth was red everywhere. All the children took up knives
to become heroes who defend the nation." The textbook highlighted
this folksong and said that this was a "Boxer folksong." But
this author has never been able to find anything that supports this after
reading all the existing Boxer flyers and documents. Usually, the
so-called oral tales from such investigations are created by others later on, and
are not trustworthy.

The textbook also said: "In Beijing's
Dongdan Xibiao Hutong, there is a temple of Yu Qian. In order to learn
from Yu Qian's patriotic spirit, the Boxer entered the city in April 2000
and then set up their altar there." All academic viewpoints
should reject unfounded assertions. Dai Yi, Dai Lan and other
Manchurian lords who brought calamity to the country and its people also had
Boxer altars set up inside their homes. So what were the Boxers trying
to learn from them?

In our country, apart from the
aforementioned textbook published by the People's Educational Publisher,
there is another set of textbooks used in the coastal regions. This is
known as the coastal edition, and it contains even more factual errors in
places and the notion of right versus wrong is even more muddled.

For example, it describing the Boxer
incident, it added these sentences: "After mid-June, the Boxer masses
began to surround the Xishiku church and the foreign consulate areas
occupied by the foreign invaders. The Qing government secretly
delivered food, vegetables, wine and fruits to the besieged invaders." Every single sentence is wrong!

First, we ask: Is the Xishiku church
"a site occupied by the invaders"? Prior to the Boxer
incident, this was just an ordinary French Catholic church. There was
nothing to prove that it is "a site occupied by the
invaders." During the Boxer uprising, from June 13, 1900, most of
the churches and residences in Beijing were destroyed in a few days,
together with several thousand civilian homes and shops. The surviving
Xishiku church and the Dongjiao consulate area provided shelter for a great
many foreign survivors and Chinese believers. The survivors inside
this church could not count on the Qing government to maintain normal social
order and they were fighting back to avoid being massacred. There is
no way to find fault either by reason or law. To say that this church
is
"a site occupied by the invaders" is irresponsible speech.

Next, the attack on the Dongjiao area was
willed by the Empress Dowager. The main assault force was Dong
Fuxiang's army and Rong Lu's army. They committed the crime and the
Boxers were just helping them. To gloss over this fact and to make out
as if the Boxers was a spontaneous patriotic action not only distorts the
historical truth but it also conceals the fact that the Qing government had
trampled all over international law. Furthermore, the attack against
the Xishiku church and the consulate area revealed the ignorance and
brutality of the autocracy and its autocrat. If this cannot even be
confronted in the late 90's of the twentieth century, then this represents
ignorance of international law while praising a national shame and
forgetting the duty to oppose the feudal autocracy!

Now look at the second sentence. The
Qing government did sent daily supplies to the besieged foreign
consulates. This was done publicly and so that "secretly"
was not based on historical data. At the time, some more alert officials
in the Qing government repeatedly requested protection of foreign
diplomats and citizens in accordance with international law. The
various governors of the southeastern provinces actually publicly stated
that they will not follow the "false order" after the June 21
declaration of war. In the face of these pressures, the Empress
Dowagers backed off and besides she also wanted some space left for maneuver.
No matter what, the Qing government still had some people inside who had
not completely lost their rationality and conscience. But to demean
their actions with respect to that of the Boxers is clearly inappropriate.

Again, the Hong Kong textbook presents a
more complete picture of the Boxer incident and the United Armies of the Eight
Nations. They denounced the Boxers for "large-scale
xenophobia, murdering preachers and believers including even those who own
foreign books or wear eyeglasses, destroying everything, burning churches,
cutting down telegraph lines, destroying railroad tracks."
"A secretary in the Japanese embassy and the German consul were killed." But they also pointed out that "the discipline of
the United Armies was very poor and they burned, looted and killed at will. Among them, the Russians, the Germans and the Indian soldiers of
the English contingent were particularly brutal." They analyzed in
detail the background which allowed the Boxers to rise: 1. Nationalism. 2.
Poverty. 3. Invasion of the foreign powers. 4. Frequent
occurrence of cases concerning religion. They also covered the
contents of the Treaty of Xinchou and its deep effect on China then and
later. Any unprejudiced person will agree that this textbook
contained the true history.

The reason why such phenomena arise is
intimately connected to the humiliation and harm that China has endured for so
long. Faced with this reality, there can be two states of mind.

The invasion of the west completely changed
the historical path of China. What happened afterwards was the breakdown
of a venerable empire and the people were reduced to struggling between life and
death. Naturally, the people blamed their state of being on the
"foreign devils"; and they have also blamed the corruption and
ignorance of the rulers. The unceasing point of debate for which
consensus is difficult to achieve is: is the principal source of this
situation internal or external?

Actually, there is a question from a
completely different angle: why did this situation not change for so
long? If someone says the imperialists are too brutal, then this is
saying nothing. After long-term, complicated and repeated conflicts, it is
possible to set up a 'just' order in the international system that will meet
the long-term interests of most people and most nations. Before this
condition appears, there won't a savior parachuting out of the sky to defend
your national interests on your behalf. The problem can only be solved
by facing this reality and figuring out how to get out of the situation.

The overseas experience proved this: when
underdeveloped countries and areas (colonies and semi-colonies) change their
development status, the only path to change is to follow the western powers
and undertake the total modernization of social life. The key to success
is national reform. This is a total transformation of the social
system. For those countries that have their own culture and are
historically resistant against outside cultures, this is a very difficult
process. For China, from the Opium War to the new politics at the
beginning of the 20th century, about 60 years was spent on deciding whether the nation
wants to reform! As for the reform process, it is an even more
complicated issue to decide between using revolutionary methods or gradual
reforms. But one thing is for certain: it is necessary to find a peaceful
international environment to win enough time for national reform and
construction. If this is more or less right, then we have to look back
at the Boxer incident and see how it was a reactionary affair that ran in the
completely opposite direction of social progress. Furthermore,
butchering foreigners is anti-humanitarian and anti-civilization, as are the violent acts that are extremely stupid and dangerous to the interests of
China.

There was a popular judgment over many years
that has been used to defend the Boxers: the Boxers avoided the partitioning
of China. The historian Li Shiyue who passed away in 1989 refuted that
argument in detail. The 450 million tael in compensation (which is
equivalent to the total national income for six years) was like a huge
bloodsucking syringe plunged into the chest of the Chinese people. It gave
Tsarist Russia the excuse to carry out the Heilanpao and Jiangdong Liushisitun
massacres in which more than 7,000 Chinese were killed and all of the land of
Jiangdong lost and the Russians entering northeastern China. The number
of war casualties in the Huabei region was inestimable. Afterwards, the
partitioning conspiracies did not end: the English army invaded Tibet and
occupied Lhasa; the Germans sent their gunboats into the Dongting lake and
wanted to take a lease of the shores of Dongting and Panyang lakes; the
English wanted to lease the Zhoushan archipelago as 'compensation.'

Some people like to quote the saying of the
German Waldersee who was the commander of the United Armies of the Eight
Nations: "No matter it is Europe, America, Japan or any country, they
don't have the brains or military power to rule over one-quarter of the
population of the world. So it is a bad move to partition
China." This proved that the Boxers stopped the partitioning of
China. Mr. Li Shiyue spoke well: "Waldersee's personal feelings do
not represent the sentiments of Germany. The Germany Kaiser had always
assumed that partitioning was the foundation of his China policy, and the
aforementioned demand to 'lease' the shores of Dongting and Panyang
lakes are the proof. The partitioning of China did not occur only
because there were contradictions among the imperialists."

If the vista is opened up, then the problem
becomes clearer. People have already pointed out: the Sino-Japanese War
of 1894-1895, the Reform Movement of 1898 and the Boxer incident is an uninterrupted flow of history. To be more precise, the Sino-Japanese War
exposed the corrupt nature of the Qing empire and many intellectuals woke up from
their dreams of many decades. They realized that it was a fundamental error for the self-renewal movement not to broach the basic issue of
"freedom versus non-freedom." This was the first
self-discovery step by the government and the reform movement advanced as a
result.
The key for the rise and decline of China now depended on whether it chooses to
reform thoroughly in the manner of the West or refuse to reform and stick to
the tradition. This is the key to understanding this piece of
history. Unfortunately, the Reform Movement after the devastating defeat of the
Sino-Japanese War failed. This reform movement had wanted to follow the
West but it suffered a setback. In the Boxer incident, the
counter-revolutionary current reached it peak for the traditionalists.
In other words, the Boxer incident reflected the continued decline of China as
an enslaved subject country from the outside and the pervasive ruin of its
people from the inside.

In 2000-2001, there was an international
incident that drew the attention of the Chinese people. That was the
problem of the Japanese school textbooks. A textbook edited by
rightwing elements attempted to cover up the historical truth and deny that Japan
committed crimes during the invasions. This aroused the Chinese and
Korean nations and peoples to protest vigorously. This was a struggle on
behalf of justice and it was the fourth time in the past twenty years.
In 1982, 1986 and 1996, there were newly revised textbooks that distort history and aroused public anger inside and outside Japan. This chronic
ill in Japanese thought has given many people a deep impression: the Japanese
lack the will to be contrite. People asked further: Why is there the
phenomenon of refusing the accept any guilt? Is this a flaw of the
Japanese people?

When you look at the aforementioned problems
in the Chinese textbooks, a logical conclusion is that our modern history have
similar kinds of problems. Of course, it is different because Japan was
the invader whereas China was being invaded. But the two have something
in common: the mainstream culture in society lacks deep reflection on its
contemporary history.

Since the beginning of the 20th century,
Chinese intellectuals have advocated remaking the national character time and
again. These vanguards meant well, but they did not ask: What are the
main factors that determine national character? It can be said that the
national character is the characteristics of the thoughts and behaviors of the
citizens. All people evolve from cannibals. As a group, the
deciding factor on the degree of civilization and barbarity is the strength of
how the cultural tradition and system can purify themselves.

The humiliation from the insults and injuries
gave the Chinese people a new momentum in thinking. This is shown over
the long-term in the form of a specious concept: since the "foreign
devils" are the invaders, the Chinese are justified and praised in
whatever they do. This is required by patriotism.

The current history textbooks are using this
concept to
guide thinking. It is obvious that we must love our country. But
there are two ways to love our country. One way is to inflame
nationalistic passions. Traditional Chinese culture had deeply ingrained
ideas such as "Chinese and foreigners are different" and "if
you not my kind, then your loyalties must be opposite to mine." Our thinking is
still poisoned by them today. The latest edition is this: if there is a
conflict between China and others, then China must be right; patriotism means
opposing the other powers and the foreigners. In the selection and
presentation of historical materials, we will only use those that favor China
whether they are true or false. The other choice is this: we analyze
everything rationally; if it is right, it is right and if it is wrong, it is
wrong; calm, objective and wholly regard and handle all conflicts with the
outside.

The basic spirit of modernization is
rationality. If we accept this basic viewpoint, then we should lead the
Chinese people down this path and let rationality and tolerance become the
national character of the Chinese people. Then the peoples of the world
and their cultures can co-exist in harmony. In an era of rapid
globalization, conflict of interest among corporations and nations are
unavoidable. Rational understanding and resolving conflicts is the best
choice for any nation or corporation. If anything related to the outside
is always about "anti-imperialism" and "anti-hegemony,"
then the matter is bound to be bungled.

For example, law is the crystallization of
human civilization and the rules by which society operates.
International treaties have legal validity. People can point out that
these treaties and laws were created with the foreign powers in charge and
that they are therefore disadvantageous to the weak countries and the poor
people. People should continue to criticize and expose the flaws and
go through various negotiations using different types of pressures to set up
new regulations and treaties. But before the revisions take place, we
must still continue to abide by them or else we create unnecessary chaos which
are detrimental to the weaker nations and the poor people in the final
analysis.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, people in
China have done many "illegal" things. The Boxer incident is
one example. The important thing to note is that there are still people
who regard those barbarous activities as "revolution." In the
90's of the twentieth century, there are still people who regard the viewpoint
of abiding by international treaties as treasonous surrender that ought to be
seriously denounced!

In the end, this is still the poisonous
residue of the vulgarization of revolution.

We must wake up and see that in the social
domain, the true revolution is one that causes the system to be
revolutionized. The Celestial Kingdom of Peace and the Boxers do not fit
this requirement. These distortions actually vulgarize the revolution
and there will be a price to be paid later on.

You should not underestimate the consequences
of this mis-education. It is against commonsense and rationality to
distort the historical truth in the name of the "revolution" and the
direct ill effects of praising the Boxers were exposed during the Cultural
Revolution. The Red Guard setting fire to the British consulate is the replica of the Boxers' action; the mania to eliminate all foreign things in
the "Anti-Four Olds," "Anti-Imperialism" and
"Anti-Revisionism" campaigns had the same logic as the Boxers' desire to
destroy the foreigners.

The logic presented in the above textbooks is
no different. Their common points are: 1. The current Chinese culture is superior and unmatched. 2. Outside culture is evil and
corrodes the purity of the existing culture. 3. We should or could
use political power or the dictatorship of the mob to violently erase all the
evil in the field of cultural thinking. To use these kinds of logic in
order to
quietly exert a subtle influence on our children is an unforgivable harm no
matter what the objective intent was.

In order to cultivate modern citizens with
rational thoughts based upon the rule of law for the modernization project,
now is the moment to correct those errors.

Reporter: How do you look at the shutdown of
Freezing Point and the "crime" attributed to the essay?

Yuan: I thought this was awful. I
thought that my essay was rational and complete, and the writing clearly showed
an opposition to the invasion of China and unforgiving towards the brutal
acts. I only reminded the Chinese people to look at the whole picture and
to regard at our own national problems head on. I find it hilarious that
such a sensible essay was not accepted; instead it was labeled "vindication
of foreign powers to invade China" and young people even called me a
national traitor on the Internet.

Reporter: But your essay was "seriously
criticized by the central government departments" and those people are not
young persons.

Yuan: Actually, the intellectuals that I have
contact with agreed with my essay. As to the crimes that are attributed,
they may or may not be right and I don't think it is worthwhile to discuss
them. What is worth discussing is how we determine whether they are right
or wrong. I believe that it ought to be done through free discourse.
How is an authoritative department, especially the criticism group formed by
retired officials at the central propaganda department, going to make any
judgment?

I would like to ask, Do you have enough
knowledge? If you are qualified, then why don't we write it all out and
lay down the historical data to discuss everything. Then we can present
the conclusions to the public and let the readers discuss. We cannot use
the methods of the Cultural Revolution to take fragments of text to twist the
original internet and hand labels to people. You know, everybody listened
to what Mao Zedong said and that caused great harm to the country.

Reporter: The world thinks that the
sentence in your essay :"We grew up drinking wolf milk" crossed the
line for hinting that the Communist Party are the wolves.

Yuan: You are simplifying the problem
that way. The "wolf" in the essay refers to a certain
xenophobia among the Chinese since the 19th century. It is a certain
narrow nationalism. It is a thought process that wants to make the class
struggle expansive, absolute and unilaterial. I am not pointing at the
Communist Party. I was talking about the thought process that wants to
use simplified concepts to describe history in order to harm people.